4.5 Article

Evaluation of mRNA marker specificity for the identification of five human body fluids by capillary electrophoresis

期刊

FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL-GENETICS
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 452-460

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.09.007

关键词

Messenger RNA (mRNA); mRNA profiling; Body fluid identification; Forensic science

资金

  1. Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory Division
  2. Federal Bureau of Investigation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The identification of forensically relevant human body fluids through messenger RNA (mRNA) profiling is of interest to the forensic community. Previous studies have proposed several tissue-specific mRNA markers to achieve this goal. Seven markers for the following genes were selected for evaluation in this study: histatin 3 (HTN3) and statherin (STATH) for saliva, mucin 4 (MUC4) for vaginal secretions, matrix metalloproteinase 7 (MMP7) for menstrual blood, delta-aminolevulinate synthase 2 (ALAS2) for peripheral blood, and protamine 2 (PRM2) and transglutaminase 4 (TGM4) for semen. The expression of these markers was examined in each body fluid. All mRNA markers were present in their target body fluids. Peripheral blood and saliva showed little cross-reactivity with the selected markers. However, a high level of cross-reactivity was observed between the vaginal secretion marker MUC4 and saliva stains. Semen showed a high level of cross-reactivity with the selected markers. Co-expression of the predicted body fluid markers was detected in menstrual blood and vaginal secretion stains. The expression pattern of these mRNA markers varied through the menstrual cycle time points tested. Differences in gene expression levels and marker cross-reactivity were observed in the donors tested. Despite the presence of cross-reactivity and co-expression, each of the body fluids examined have distinct gene expression profiles, allowing for body fluid identification based on mRNA profiling. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据